Dutch apartment buildings must have a "Vereniging van Eigenaren" (VvE, loosely translated: "owner's association"). If you buy an apartment in the building, you must become a member of said VvE. As far as I can find, the basic regulations regarding that membership don't include mandatory 'board duty'.

I'm aware there's a second option though, where a VvE can implement its own "house rules" on top of the basic regulations. I know not everything can just be put in those house rules, for example I found this Dutch site which explains that you can't e.g. put age discrimination in the house rules. It also seems that in order to put something in the house rules, you'll need a 2/3 majority vote, and that whatever is put into it needs to be reasonable and fair according to law.

A VvE also needs a board, with at least 1 person (but preferably 3) acting as a board member and managing the VvE and its finances.

Now, given a situation where a VvE can't find voluntary board members, can being a mandatory board member for a period of time be made part of the house rules? Assuming the majority votes for this, would it be reasonable and fair according to Dutch law, or would the rule be judged unreasonable/unfair in court?

1 Answer 1


can being a mandatory board member for a period of time be made part of the house rules?

Generally speaking, yes. Book 5 of Netherlands Burgerlijk Wetboek states in its article 127(2) that the chairman will be appointed [by the association] from among the owners unless the association bylaws provide otherwise. The statute makes no distinction between consensus and compulsion in regard to the appointment.

If the bylaws provide that the board shall consist of more than one member, the merits of mandatory appointment --if need be-- are stronger. That is because that scenario implies that the the association failed to amend the bylaws to the effect of reducing the number of required members of the board. Unless the bylaws prescribe a solution, the equitable approach would be to exempt from mandatory appointment the owners (if any) who (1) pursued that amendment, or (2) most recently served in the board. It is otherwise inconsistent for a majority to require a multi-member board and at the same time be uncooperative about filling the vacant positions.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .